MR RAJIV B URS V. COMMISSIONER

WP/23272/2021

AI Insights

The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by various petitioners, including individual proprietors and companies, against the Mysuru Mahanagara Palike and the Directorate of Municipal Administration, Bengaluru. The petitions challenged the guidelines and compendium of property tax issued on 18.02.2021 and 19.02.2021, respectively. The petitioners argued that the subclassification of non-residential buildings for tax purposes was not permissible under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. The respondents defended the classification, citing the statutory provisions that allow for such tax levies and classifications. The court's decision emphasized the legality of the tax compendium and the authority of the municipal corporation to classify properties for taxation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 692370 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHILLONG vs T TAKIN ROI RAYMBAI AIR 1976 SC 670, E P ROYAPPA vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU AIR 1974 SC 555, S RAJAGOPALACHAR & ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, disposed off on 02.03.2010
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GEETHADEVI P
• Assessee Lawyers: ARUN PONNAPPA
• Keywords: Property tax; Tax Compendium; Subclassification; Municipal Taxation
• Section: 108; 265; 109; 108(3)

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.23272/2021(LB-TAX) C/W WRIT PETITION NOs.22765/2021, 22768/2021, 22771/2021, 22781/2021, 24193/2021, 79/2021 , 81/2021(LB-TAX) IN W.P.NO.23272/2021: BETWEEN: MR. RAJIV B URS, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE M B RAMESH, PROPRIETOR, M/S SANGAM THEATRE, NO.222, NEETHI MARG, SIDDARTHA LAYOUT, MYSURU – 570 011. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARUN PONNAPPA,ADVOCATE) AND: COMMISSIONER, MYSURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MYSURU – 570 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GEETHADEVI M P, ADVOCATE) 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GUIDELINE/HAND BOOK/ COMPENDIUM OF PROPERTY TAX ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT MYSURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE AND GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION DATED 18.2.2021, CIRCULAR DATED 19.2.2021 OF THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION BENGALURU. IN W.P.NO.22765/2021: BETWEEN: M/S WOODLANDS COMPANY (WOODLANDS THEATRE), MO 2722, CURZON PARK ROAD, LASKAR MOHALLA, MYSURU 570001, (REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR B R VENKATACHALA) … PETITIONER (BY SRI. M ARUN PONAPPA,ADVOCATE) AND: COMMISSIONER, MYSURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MYSURU – 570 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GEETHA DEVI M P, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GUIDELINE/HAND BOOK/COMPENDIUM OF PROPERTY TAX ANNEXURE-A, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT ULLEKA GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION DTD 18.02.2021 AND CIRCULAR DATED 19.02.2021 VIDE ANNXURE-B OF THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, BENGLAURU 3 IN W.P.NO. 22768/2021: BETWEEN: MYSURU KALYANAMANTAPA MALIKARA SANGHA (R), C/O SINDUR CONVENTION HALL, NO.42F, INDUSTRIAL SUBRUB, 2ND STAGE, VISHVESHWARA NAGAR, MYSURU-570008. (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR M N VENKATESH) … PETITIONER (BY SRI. M ARUN PONNAPPA,ADVOCATE) AND: COMMISSIONER MYSURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MYSURU – 570 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. M P GEETHA DEVI, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GUIDELINE/HAND BOOK/COMPENDIUM OF PROPERTY TAX ANNEXURE-B, ULLEKA GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION DTD 18.02.2021 AND CIRCULAR DATED 19.02.2021 OF THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, BENGALURU. IN W.P.NO.22771/2021: BETWEEN: M/S LAKSHMI TALKIES CHAMARAJA DOUBLE ROAD, MYSURU 570024 NOW AT BANGALORE, (REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR C S SUBRAMANIAM) … PETITIONER (BY SRI.M ARUN PONNAPPA,ADVOCATE) 4 AND: COMMISSIONER MYSURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MYSURU – 570 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. M P GEETHA DEVI, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GUIDELINES/HAND COMPENDIUM OF PROPERTY TAX ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT MYSORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION DTD.18.2.2021 AND CIRCULAR DTD.19.2.2021 OF THE DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION BENGALURU. IN W.P.NO. 22781/2021: BETWEEN: M/S SARASWATHI THEATRE, NEW KANTHARAJE URS ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU 570009, (REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR C G NARAYAN) … PETITIONER (BY SRI. M ARUN PONAPPA,ADVOCATE) AND: COMMISSIONER MYSURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MYSURU – 570 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. M P GEETHA DEVI, ADVOCATE FOR R1) 5 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GUIDELINES/HAND COMPENDIUM OF PROPERTY TAX ANNEXURE-AI AND GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION DATED 18.2.2021 AND CIRCULAR DATED 19.2.2021 OF THE DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION BENGALURU. IN W.P.NO. 24193/2021: BETWEEN: M/S SRI NAGARAJA INVESTMENTS PVT LTD., KABIR ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570 001. (REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR N S PRASAD). … PETITIONER (BY SRI. M ARUN PONAPPA,ADVOCATE) AND: COMMISSIONER, MYSURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MYSURU – 570 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GEETHA DEVI M P, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GUIDELINE/HAND BOOK/COMPENDIUM OF PROPERTY TAX ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., 6 IN W.P.NO. 79/2021: BETWEEN: MR. G N JEEVAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, MANAGING PARTNER, RAJKAMAL PREMIER PICTURE HOUSE, NO.20, INDIRANAGAR NEW EXTENSION, NEAR RACE COURSE CIRCLE, ITTEGUDU, MYSURU – 570 010. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. M ARUN PONNAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: COMMISSIONER, MYSURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MYSURU – 570 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GEETHA DEVI M P, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GUIDELINE/HAND BOOK/COMPENDIUM OF PROPERTY TAX VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC., IN W.P.NO. 81/2021: BETWEEN: M C THIMMAIAHACHAR FAMILY TRUST, GAYATHI TALKIES, CHAMARAJ DOUBLE ROAD, MYSURU – 570 024. (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR. M R RAJARAM) … PETITIONER (BY SRI. M ARUN PONNAPPA,ADVOCATE) 7 AND: COMMISSIONER, MYSURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MYSURU – 570 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GEETHA DEVI M P, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GUIDELINES/HAND BOOK/COMPENDIUM OF PROPERTY TAX VIDE ANNX-A. AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER All these petitions seek to lay a challenge to the Handbook/Compendium of Property Tax that is animated by Government Notification dated 18.02.2021 followed by Circular dated 19.02.2021 issued by the Directorate of Municipal Administration, Bengaluru. The essential grounds of challenge are that for the purpose of taxation, the respondent-Corporation could not have subclassified the non-residential buildings under other heads, all they being one homogenous class. Competence to levy tax, to classify the properties of the kind under different categories 8 and power to recover tax are the subject matter of submission at the Bar. 2. The respondent – Corporation after service of notice entered appearance through its Sr. Panel Counsel and has filed the Statement of Objections resisting the writ petitions that involve common questions of law & facts. The Panel Counsel makes vehement submission in justification of the impugned Property Tax Compendium and seeks dismissal of writ petitions with costs. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: a) The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned Tax Compendium is liable to be voided inasmuch as, there is no provision in the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, for classifying the non-residential properties in the Mysuru City for the purpose of taxation, is bit difficult to countenance. Article 265 of the Constitution of India provides for the levy of tax through Legislation. The provisions inter alia of Sections 108 & 109 of the 1976 Act enable the Corporations to levy 9 Property Tax; therefore, there is statutory competence for such levy. It does not need a research to know that the Corporations and Local Governance Bodies do classify properties for the purpose of taxation; at times, subclassification of these properties also happens. Section 108(3) specifically provides for such classification, which as of necessity admits subclassification as well. Ordinarily, power to classify includes power to subclassify, provided that there is a reasonable basis for such subclassification and the reasonable nexus between such classification and the object sought to be achieved thereby. There is sufficient intrinsic material in the language of Section 108(3) as to the grounds on which the classification of the properties can be made for the purpose of taxation, as rightly submitted by learned Panel Counsel for the Corporation. b) The power to tax is an incidence of sovereignty and it is co-extensive with the subjects to which the sovereignty extends; although it is unlimited in its range, acknowledging in its very nature no limits, the provisions of Sections 108, 109 of the Act regulate the levy. Constitutionally, a tax can have no other basis 10 than the raising of a revenue for the public purposes. In the matter of taxation, the Government and the statutory authorities have a larger leverage, unless the provisions thereof provide otherwise, as observed by the Apex Court in INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHILLONG vs T TAKIN ROI RAYMBAI AIR 1976 SC 670 Section 108(3) provides for levy of Property Tax and the classification of the buildings and vacant lands having regard to their location, type of construction, nature of their use, the size & Arial extent of the building & age of the building and such other criteria. The classification made under the impugned Tax Compendium cannot be faltered since, these factors animate it. After all, the doctrine of equality envisages not only treating the similars as similar but not treating the unequals as unequal, vide E P ROYAPPA vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU AIR 1974 SC 555; at the same time, in the matter of classification, the mathematics does not much come to ones aid. It is experience and not the logic that infuses life into the law. c) There is a lot of force in the vehement submission of learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the respondent – Corporation that the classification of the properties of the kind has 11 been there since about two decades or so and that the owners have been paying the Property Taxes all through and therefore, they cannot much grieve as if something has come as a bolt from the blue. The Corporation comprises of elected representatives of the people and levy of tax and classification of properties for the purpose of taxation have thus a popular mandate. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that these have been accomplished without authority of law and arbitrarily is bit difficult to agree with. It is not impertinent to mention about the Division Bench Decision in W.A.Nos. 3977 - 3978/2003 (LB-TAX) & Other Matters b/w S RAJAGOPALACHAR & ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, disposed off on 02.03.2010 which upheld the Tax Compendium of the kind. Incidentally, it was the counsel for the petitioners herein who too had argued those cases. d) All the above having been said, it needs to be stated that even in matters of taxation, the voice of the likely aggrieved needs to be heard, howsoever week that may be, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is not that the 12 Legislature itself is levying the Property Tax. It has enabled the Corporations to levy tax by prescribing certain limitations & procedures. If the petitioners give an appropriate representation supported by evidentiary material as to why their properties ought to or ought not to have been classified or subclassified, the Corporation has to consider the same before taking coercive action for the recovery of tax during the next Assessment Year. Such a course would infuse a sense of justice in the taxpayers and no prejudice would be caused thereby to the public interest, more particularly when ours is a Welfare State. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed off without interfering with the impugned Tax Compendium, Government Notification & the Circular. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners and other taxpayers if any, to workout their grievances in the light of observations hereinabove made. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE Bsv "